Oklahoma Pharmacist Sentenced to Life for Shooting Robber

Are you saying there are no people that fit that description?

DD

 

After watching the video I agree with the jury's ruling. Ersland goes about getting the second gun and shooting the robber 5 more times fairly calm and methodical. This doesn't look like a panicked scramble out of fear to deal with a threat.

As far as comparing this to the Joe Horn case my understanding is that Texas law expands the definition of Self-Defense to allow someone a third party to act protecting someone else's property. While that can still result in the death of the robbers "self-defense" is still bound by a reasonable person standard where time and state of the assailant/robber plays a role. In the Joe Horn situation he reacted fairly quickly and shot them while they were on their feet, thus potentially still being a threat. If he had continued to shoot them while down I suspect Joe Horn's situation might've been different.

Just to add I didn't condone Joe Horn's actions and think the Texas law is reckless but from reading it and comparing it to this situation I can see why there is a difference between these cases.

 

Has it been noted how bad the first shot was? What I mean by that is they say the 5 shots killed him -- which of course is clear -- but did the first shot just graze him or was it in his brain? Would he have eventually died from the first shot?

 

Don't feel sorry for either of them. The thief put his life at risk when he chose to rob the store and the pharmacist put his freedom at risk when he chose to become a murder.

No sympathy. Do the crime and pay the price.

 

Didn't they ban Sharia law in Oklahoma?

 

The defense(pharmacist) could've argued that he suspected the robber was just playing dead and wanted to make sure he was really dead.

I have to side with the pharmacist on this one. Not guilty. I can see myself doing the same thing in that situation.

 

Just because you would do the same thing doesn't mean it isn't murder in Oklahoma. He could have pointed his gun at the body while dialing the phone. He could have escorted the women to safety and called from another location.

If he thought the guy was playing dead, he wouldn't have turned his back to him to walk and grab another gun/clip. While I feel no sympathy for the robber, we aren't vigilantes.

 

He's not expected to exercise that level of diligence. He's a civilian.

He was sloppy or careless or a bit panicked? And, like I said before, he's a civilian. We all react differently.

 

Agreed and repped. There's nothing to discuss here.

 

So you agree with the first degree murder charge and life-in-prison?

 

Yup.

I'm all for defending yourself, but that dude coming back like that and calmly executing was disturbed.

 

He is a military veteran who has claimed to have killed in combat before:

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-druggist-jerome-erslands-record-in-doubt/article/3388041

I wonder how much they discussed PTSD during the trial.

 

If you watch the video he doesn't appear panicked at all and seems fairly methodical about what he is doing.

While yes none of us know what we might do until we are in that situation in general the law regarding self-defense is pretty clear that it only applies when you are dealing with an imminent threat. An unconscious person isn't an imminent threat and as far as playing dead as other posters have noted Erland already had a loaded gun and could've just kept it pointed at him to see if he came to.

 

If this occured in the process of a "war" (i.e. something similar happened in Afghanistan, without the robbery element, but with the unconscious bad guy then getting further shot and killed element), I wonder if it would still be considered murder and/or if people would think differently.

 

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/euluw4yGKUA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

He admits in this video that he shot the kid because he thought the boy killed one of the women. What a horrible attorney allowing him to say these things.

I also love how the video is editted by FoxNews to not show him walking calmy towards the drawer after coming back inside before shooting 5 more times.

This entire thing screams small town rural america race war. I don't think Ersland had a shot at a fair trial in this town.

 

http://youtu.be/s3M8OvTGPCU

Embedding disabled here but Ersland original said he was only shooting to get them to leave. Clearly, the evidence shows differently.

A point can be made that Ersland knew what he did was wrong as the story he tells in multiple videos keeps changing.

 

I quit watching it right after he started talking. Even if the kid had killed the girl, what right did Jerome have to shoot him five more times? Ridiculous.

 

Was the first gun still loaded? I don't think there's any mention of it.

"An unconscious person isn't an imminent threat"

I disagree. An unconscious person might wake up at anytime. You also can't expect every civilian to have the mind to point a gun and secure themselves.

I would've shot the thief myself, in that situation. He might suddenly get up while my guard's down, disarm and kill me.

The newer evidence ChievousFTFace presented, though, makes it seem like he's lying but that's another case.

 

Erland had gotten a second loaded weapon which isn't a crime. It was shooting an unconscious man that was the crime.

And you would be charged with murder also in that case. A person who is shot to the point of unconsciousness isn't likely to suddenly get up and be able to fight like nothing happened. Contrary to what the movies depict getting shot in a way that would render someone unconscious is likely to lead to death if not treated right away. Just shock from blood loss can lead to rapid death.

Also to be in a situation where a man down and wounded can suddenly disarm you when you have a loaded gun pointed at them would mean either that person was some sort of super athlete or you were an idiot that stood so close to the person to allow that to happen. Erland was a few feet away and even if the robber could've gotten to his feet Erland still had plenty of space to shoot him.

Bottom line was that Erland was convicted in a trial by his peers who saw it as premeditated murder. Based on the evidence provided I don't see anything to counter that opinion. The rest is just speculation that we can never know for sure and given the circumstances seems unlikely.

 

That kind of knowledge is beyond what is expected of an average citizen. You can't expect an average citizen to be able to render diagnosis to be able to discern whether or not the shot person is fighting fit.

Like I said before, not everybody has the mind to do it and there is nothing in the law requiring anybody to do that. Heck, I could probably do it but, if I just chose to kill him, could you call it murder? No. Malicious intent from the robber was already established. For all I know, there's the possibility he could jump me while I'm off guard so I take the precaution of killing him.

I can't speak for Ersland but if he said he didn't feel like he'd be able to just point the gun at the robber and needed to kill him to secure himself, I don't see how they could condemn him of murder.